‘Animals Are Sentient Beings, Not Case Property’: Delhi Court Pulls Up Shelter in Dog Seizure Case

Additional Session Judge (ASJ) Surabhi Sharma Vats of Karkardooma Court termed the explanations offered by the shelter for non-compliance as “totally unsatisfactory, evasive, and lacking in bona fides,” and sought an exhaustive status report on its functioning, record-keeping, and handling of animals taken into custody under the law.

The observations were made while hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an order dated August 11, 2025, passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class at Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara. By the impugned order, custody of ten dogs seized in FIR No. 369/2025 registered at Jagat Puri police station was directed to be released in favour of the accused, referred to as respondent no. 2.

The revisionist, an animal welfare organisation, Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre argued that the magistrate’s order was contrary to the object and statutory framework of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as the animals had been released to the accused himself. It was further submitted that a subsequent order dated December 24, 2025, had directed the revisionist to hand over custody of all ten dogs within seven days with police assistance, but compliance could not be effected due to practical difficulties.

According to the revisionist, the Centre housed nearly 6,000 animals, including around 3,000 dogs, and staff shortages during the New Year period had delayed identification of the ten dogs referred to in the court orders.

The Court, however, rejected these explanations outright. It clarified that there was no stay on the execution of the magistrate’s order and held that an organisation claiming custody of thousands of animals was expected to maintain proper records, identification protocols, medical documentation, and traceability, particularly when animals were taken into custody under authority of law.

“Animals, birds, and living beings are not inanimate objects or disposable items. They are entitled to life, dignity, and proper care under the law,” the Court observed, stressing that the issue involved questions of life and welfare rather than mere possession or logistics.

The Court also expressed serious concern over submissions made earlier by the revisionist before the trial court that some of the dogs might have died during custody. These statements, it noted, were “extremely alarming” and pointed to gross lapses in supervision, medical care, and accountability.

Significantly, the Court underscored that no judicial finding of cruelty had been returned against any party so far, and claims of prima facie cruelty remained assertions of the complainant, not conclusions of a court of law.

In view of the circumstances, the Court directed the revisionist to file a detailed, sworn status report covering, among other things, the total number of animals taken into custody case-wise, the number returned pursuant to court orders, details of animals that died during custody with veterinary records, animals sold or adopted, identification and traceability mechanisms, and explanations for non-compliance with judicial directions.

Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 strongly opposed the revisionist’s conduct, alleging complete disregard for court orders and contending that staffing shortages and logistical excuses exposed the organisation’s inability to manage animal custody. He further alleged selective custody of exotic or high-value breeds, raising concerns of commercial motives and even a potential animal trafficking racket.

After hearing both sides, the Court directed that the matter be listed for filing of the status report and arguments on January 16, 2026, and ordered that a copy of the order be supplied dasti to all parties.